Male Circumcision

[saxitoxin]

Santa Clauses reindeers have wings fashioned out of the foreskins of circumcised elves. It's that simple.

This seems very unacceptable. But, of course, the European Court of Human Rights refuses to hear cases involving elves so Santa gets away with it on a technicality. Just another example of how the EU has failed.

[MeDeFe]

Santa Clauses reindeers have wings fashioned out of the foreskins of circumcised elves. It's that simple.

This seems very unacceptable. But, of course, the European Court of Human Rights refuses to hear cases involving elves so Santa gets away with it on a technicality. Just another example of how the EU has failed.

Of course it's a travesty that elves lack human rights simply on account of being non-human, this is exactly why we need to abandon the concept of "human rights" and adopt the concept of "basic rights for sentient beings".

Here's a surveillance video of Santa's reindeers attacking a herd of non-flying reindeers in northern Sweden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJw0ktrsv6w

[natty dread]

Now, in reference to my previous question - can you fly? Also, being a Finnman, can you advise us if this is the more rational, scientific explanation as the source of Santa Claus' supposed power of flight?

I'm not sure. I don't think I can, but maybe I've just never tried hard enough...

Also, santa claus doesn't fly at all. He has outsourced the present delivery business to China, I think they mostly use UAV:s.

[BigBallinStalin]

Betamethasone dipropionate

Saxitoxin, are you related to Betamethasone dipropionate, a.k.a. Betameth?

[saxitoxin]

Betamethasone dipropionate

Saxitoxin, are you related to Betamethasone dipropionate, a.k.a. Betameth?

No, but I get that a lot. Funny story, though, my sister - Phoneutria nigriventer toxin-3 - actually was in a crochet class with Betameth in Rio back in '72.

[natty dread]

Betamethasone dipropionate

Saxitoxin, are you related to Betamethasone dipropionate, a.k.a. Betameth?

I can see the resemblance, but I'd have to say no - betamethasone contains a phenanthrene backbone, which is obviously lacking from saxitoxin. Therefore my professional opinion is that if these two were to have intercourse with each other, one of them would likely be commiting bestiality.

[BigBallinStalin]

Betamethasone dipropionate

Saxitoxin, are you related to Betamethasone dipropionate, a.k.a. Betameth?

I can see the resemblance, but I'd have to say no - betamethasone contains a phenanthrene backbone, which is obviously lacking from saxitoxin. Therefore my professional opinion is that if these two were to have intercourse with each other, one of them would likely be commiting bestiality.

Sounds spicy.

Saxitoxin, have you intercoursed a wild Betameth beast?

Natty, have you ever made out with a moose? Isn't that a popular Finnish past-time?

[MeDeFe]

Betamethasone dipropionate

Saxitoxin, are you related to Betamethasone dipropionate, a.k.a. Betameth?

I can see the resemblance, but I'd have to say no - betamethasone contains a phenanthrene backbone, which is obviously lacking from saxitoxin. Therefore my professional opinion is that if these two were to have intercourse with each other, one of them would likely be commiting bestiality.

Sounds spicy.

Saxitoxin, have you intercoursed a wild Betameth beast?

Natty, have you ever made out with a moose? Isn't that a popular Finnish past-time?

They're too big and tend to kick, reindeer are the animal of choice since they're largely domesticated.

Or so I hear. Not that I'd have any first-hand experience with that kind of thing.

[natty dread]

Hate to disappoint you guys, but my only experience that's even close to bestiality is when my girlfriend asks me to dress up as Donald Duck for sex.

Luckily, it's easy to dress up as Donald, all I have to do is take off my pants.

[Woodruff]

Question to Woodruff:

What is your stand on clitoridectomy? Should it be allowed in the name of religious freedom?

You clearly don't understand my position. I am not particularly in favor of circumcision (nor clitoridectomy, for that matter). To be honest, I'd never thought too much about it. My point, however, is that the same standard should be applied to baby piercings, if the argument is one of consent (which it seems to be). Otherwise, this is just an anti-religion thing.

(And if you haven't noticed, I don't tend to fall on the side of religion in these discussions...)

[MeDeFe]

Question to Woodruff:

What is your stand on clitoridectomy? Should it be allowed in the name of religious freedom?

You clearly don't understand my position. I am not particularly in favor of circumcision (nor clitoridectomy, for that matter). To be honest, I'd never thought too much about it. My point, however, is that the same standard should be applied to baby piercings, if the argument is one of consent (which it seems to be). Otherwise, this is just an anti-religion thing.

(And if you haven't noticed, I don't tend to fall on the side of religion in these discussions...)

Well...
I basically agree. Piercing the earlobes of newborns for any non-medical reason is as fucked up as circumcising a new-born for any non-medical reason.
However, I also think that a piercing the earlobes of a newborn is less damaging than a circumcision, and as such piercings are (theoretically) easier to justify, and it's more important to focus on stopping circumcision of newborns than piercings of newborns.

[Woodruff]

Question to Woodruff:

What is your stand on clitoridectomy? Should it be allowed in the name of religious freedom?

You clearly don't understand my position. I am not particularly in favor of circumcision (nor clitoridectomy, for that matter). To be honest, I'd never thought too much about it. My point, however, is that the same standard should be applied to baby piercings, if the argument is one of consent (which it seems to be). Otherwise, this is just an anti-religion thing.

(And if you haven't noticed, I don't tend to fall on the side of religion in these discussions...)

Well...
I basically agree. Piercing the earlobes of newborns for any non-medical reason is as fucked up as circumcising a new-born for any non-medical reason.
However, I also think that a piercing the earlobes of a newborn is less damaging than a circumcision, and as such piercings are (theoretically) easier to justify, and it's more important to focus on stopping circumcision of newborns than piercings of newborns.

I grant that it's less damaging. I don't find that as necessary to excusal, given that nobody here (to my knowledge) will actually be stopping these things from happening but are rather simply railing against them in an online forum.

[MeDeFe]

Question to Woodruff:

What is your stand on clitoridectomy? Should it be allowed in the name of religious freedom?

You clearly don't understand my position. I am not particularly in favor of circumcision (nor clitoridectomy, for that matter). To be honest, I'd never thought too much about it. My point, however, is that the same standard should be applied to baby piercings, if the argument is one of consent (which it seems to be). Otherwise, this is just an anti-religion thing.

(And if you haven't noticed, I don't tend to fall on the side of religion in these discussions...)

Well...
I basically agree. Piercing the earlobes of newborns for any non-medical reason is as fucked up as circumcising a new-born for any non-medical reason.
However, I also think that a piercing the earlobes of a newborn is less damaging than a circumcision, and as such piercings are (theoretically) easier to justify, and it's more important to focus on stopping circumcision of newborns than piercings of newborns.

I grant that it's less damaging. I don't find that as necessary to excusal, given that nobody here (to my knowledge) will actually be stopping these things from happening but are rather simply railing against them in an online forum.

With any luck, some of the reasoned arguments you refer to as "railing" may actually make one or two proponents of foreskin amputation rethink their position.

[Crazyirishman]

I support circumcision for the following reasons:
- it builds character
- because it is barbaric, it can help us remember where we came from, as it likely that almost everyone is the descendent of a circumcised penis. We like to think we're all sophisticated cus we have the fancy book learnin that says circumcision is wrong.
- my penis is so big that part of it had to be snipped off at birth so that everyone else's tiny uncircumcised wing dings would be able to measure up properly.
- doctors will lose money earned from circumcisions, so they will have to make up for it buy charging more for other procedures

[PLAYER57832]

[
Male genital mutilation is perfectly comparable with female genital mutilation.

No, and even your own data confirms this. There is a BIG difference between reduced sensation and no sensation, just to begin.

Neither have any medical benefits, both are harmful, and both are performed for religious reasons. Both have "milder" and more extreme forms - some religious sects practice a form of MGM where the entire area of skin between the penis and navel is removed, and some forms of FGM do not remove all sexual functionality.

Actually, female circumcisn ALWAYS removes the clitorus. Male circumcism is debatable, I will give you that, but there are no medical benefits at all ever documented from female circumcism, and plenty of very negative results.

Sorry, but your attempt to compare the two makes me truly question your data on male circumcision. Males who have undergone circumcision don't all report negative problems (again, refer to your study). Women, by contrast ALL do. It is inherent in the procedure.

[MeDeFe]

[
Male genital mutilation is perfectly comparable with female genital mutilation.

No, and even your own data confirms this. There is a BIG difference between reduced sensation and no sensation, just to begin.

Neither have any medical benefits, both are harmful, and both are performed for religious reasons. Both have "milder" and more extreme forms - some religious sects practice a form of MGM where the entire area of skin between the penis and navel is removed, and some forms of FGM do not remove all sexual functionality.

Actually, female circumcisn ALWAYS removes the clitorus. Male circumcism is debatable, I will give you that, but there are no medical benefits at all ever documented from female circumcism, and plenty of very negative results.

Sorry, but your attempt to compare the two makes me truly question your data on male circumcision. Males who have undergone circumcision don't all report negative problems (again, refer to your study). Women, by contrast ALL do. It is inherent in the procedure.

My dear girl, please inform yourself before spouting bullshit.

Yes, I'm going to continue calling you "dear girl" for as long as you continue spouting bullshit.

I mentioned "trimming the labia" earlier. That's a form of female circumcision that doesn't involve removing the clitoris. There are women who decide to have the size of their labia reduced for aesthetic reasons, have you asked them what they think? Have you asked women who were circumcised before they ever had sex, just like most boys are circumcised before having sex?

[natty dread]

[
Male genital mutilation is perfectly comparable with female genital mutilation.

No, and even your own data confirms this. There is a BIG difference between reduced sensation and no sensation, just to begin.

Neither have any medical benefits, both are harmful, and both are performed for religious reasons. Both have "milder" and more extreme forms - some religious sects practice a form of MGM where the entire area of skin between the penis and navel is removed, and some forms of FGM do not remove all sexual functionality.

Actually, female circumcisn ALWAYS removes the clitorus. Male circumcism is debatable, I will give you that, but there are no medical benefits at all ever documented from female circumcism, and plenty of very negative results.

Sorry, but your attempt to compare the two makes me truly question your data on male circumcision. Males who have undergone circumcision don't all report negative problems (again, refer to your study). Women, by contrast ALL do. It is inherent in the procedure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_gen ... s_I_and_II

Types I and II

Type I is the removal of the clitoral hood (Type Ia); or the partial or total removal of the clitoris, a clitoridectomy (Type Ib).[2] Type II, often called excision, is partial or total removal of the clitoris and the inner labia or outer labia. Type IIa is removal of the inner labia only; Type IIb, partial or total removal of the clitoris and the inner labia; and Type IIc, partial or total removal of the clitoris, and the inner and outer labia.[2]

So, just from the wikipedia article, the clitoris is not always removed. Like I said, there's different types of both MGM and FGM. The victims defend, rationalize and justify the practice of genital mutilation, on both sides - this doesn't mean that either practice is justifiable.

Bottom line is, genital mutilation is wrong, no matter what sex it's performed on.

[Crazyirishman]

Bottom line is, genital mutilation is wrong, no matter what sex it's performed on.

There is actually a plethora of positive effects the male circumcision.

[MeDeFe]

Bottom line is, genital mutilation is wrong, no matter what sex it's performed on.

There is actually a plethora of positive effects the male circumcision.

This would be true, if not every claimed positive effect had been shown to be non-existent or negligible, and if the negatives didn't far outweigh the entirely subjective positives like "I think it looks better".

[PLAYER57832]

[quote="natty dread
So, just from the wikipedia article, the clitoris is not always removed. Like I said, there's different types of both MGM and FGM. The victims defend, rationalize and justify the practice of genital mutilation, on both sides - this doesn't mean that either practice is justifiable.

Bottom line is, genital mutilation is wrong, no matter what sex it's performed on.[/quote]

No, male circumcision is brought about because of either religious or medical reasons. You can argue against the medical/religious reasoning, say that the risks outweigh the gain, but they exist and are, historically why circumcision is so widespread.

Female "circumcision", to contrast IS done to make women more attractive to men, to make sure they specifically do not experience sexual pleasure (so they are "not polluted" by it, or not swayed to stray, etc.). They use a "religious" justification, but it is not something actually specified by those religions, it is, instead something taken up by the men in the societies.

Per the bit about labia removals and such, I would argue that the impact of even that is far more than for a male circumcision. Further, that procedure, along with various other things WHO classifies as Type IV mutilation are done only rarely. The "voluntary" procedure to which MeDeFe alluded is a fairly modern development.

[MeDeFe]

Player, there are no sound medical reasons for pre-emptively removing the foreskin shortly after birth. They've all been debunked.

[natty dread]

So, just from the wikipedia article, the clitoris is not always removed. Like I said, there's different types of both MGM and FGM. The victims defend, rationalize and justify the practice of genital mutilation, on both sides - this doesn't mean that either practice is justifiable.

Bottom line is, genital mutilation is wrong, no matter what sex it's performed on.

No, male circumcision is brought about because of either religious or medical reasons. You can argue against the medical/religious reasoning, say that the risks outweigh the gain, but they exist and are, historically why circumcision is so widespread.

Female "circumcision", to contrast IS done to make women more attractive to men, to make sure they specifically do not experience sexual pleasure (so they are "not polluted" by it, or not swayed to stray, etc.). They use a "religious" justification, but it is not something actually specified by those religions, it is, instead something taken up by the men in the societies.

Per the bit about labia removals and such, I would argue that the impact of even that is far more than for a male circumcision. Further, that procedure, along with various other things WHO classifies as Type IV mutilation are done only rarely. The "voluntary" procedure to which MeDeFe alluded is a fairly modern development.

There is only one medical condition (severe phimosis) which requires male circumcision, and I say severe because at least 77% of all cases of phimosis can be cured without circumcision. In most cases it is entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable.

Likewise, labia circumcision can be performed for medical or cosmetic reasons in marginal cases. In most cases it is entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable.

You're being dishonest when you only compare the most extreme forms of FGM against the mildest, medically necessary forms of MGM. Yes, leg amputations are sometimes necessary too - that doesn't mean that it should be acceptable to amputate legs of infants indiscriminately for no good medical reason.

My point stands - both male and female circumcision have some marginal cases where their use is acceptable, that doesn't mean that either is acceptable outside of those specific cases. Your stance is irrational and inconsistent - you argue it's not ok to mutilate women, but it's ok to do the same for men - this is also horribly sexist.

[BigBallinStalin]

If one could reduce the risk of diseases like Alzheimer's by removing a certain amount of the brain, then shouldn't we start scooping out some baby brains to avoid this problem?

[rdsrds2120]

If one could reduce the risk of diseases like Alzheimer's by removing a certain amount of the brain, then shouldn't we start scooping out some baby brains to avoid this problem?

Totally. It's high risk high return, but I think the odds are TOTALLY in our favor!

Saxi can be the surgeon. I hear he's an MD.

-rd

[saxitoxin]

If one could reduce the risk of diseases like Alzheimer's by removing a certain amount of the brain, then shouldn't we start scooping out some baby brains to avoid this problem?

Totally. It's high risk high return, but I think the odds are TOTALLY in our favor!

Saxi can be the surgeon. I hear he's an MD.

Oh, okay! Afterwards we can all get together for a game of 'Hide the Foreskin' - we used to play it in medical school all the time. You just need 4-5 participants, scissors for everyone, a stop watch and an International House of Pancakes during midnight rush.

For legal reasons, it's best if everyone wear masks.